Microsoft on Feb. 16 is set to announce 34 Office suites, programs, servers, services and tools – 13 of which are new – that form part of its 2007 Microsoft Office family of products, previously knows as Office 12. Retail pricing for the comparable versions of the product has not been increased, remaining unchanged from the retail prices for Office 2003, John Cairns, senior director of licensing and pricing in Microsoft’s Information Worker division, told eWEEK. More information at CNet.
“There’s a tremendous amount in the new Office 2007,” [Parri Munsell] said. “We do believe this is the most significant advance in over a decade.”
I couldn’t agree more. MS Office has been fairly stagnant since at least Office ’97. MS has gradually added some new features and new functionality over time, but for most people there hasn’t been a really significant feature that would drive the need to upgrade. About the only thing that I could see really improving enough to warrant a desire for an upgrade were collaboration capabilities.
This time around MS hasn’t only added a bunch of new features. They’ve added some “programs,” and they’ve taken a radically different approach to their UI. They’ve even changed their consumer pricing model.
I haven’t seen MS doing nearly as much to make Office appealing for a very long time, and I think it would be somewhat hard to come up with a strong argument that competition hasn’t prompted much of it. iLife and OOo, and others have shown MS that Office can actually be expendable to a certain degree especially when using a platform that isn’t Windows. In turn I’m sure that Microsoft’s latest efforts will prompt some even greater efforts the developers of iLife, OOo, and others. I love competition.
I’m sure companies are going to want to upgrade to this straight away.
They’ve even changed their consumer pricing model.
Yer. I’m sure people are going to appreciate going through a mountain of licensing and restrictions they probably didn’t know existed.
Give me a break.
Ahoy, troll!
I’m sure companies are going to want to upgrade to this straight away.
Companies rarely upgrade to anything “straight away.” Sometimes they skip a product entirely. Companies may still decide to pass on Office 2007, but that doesn’t mean that Office 2007 didn’t get a little more TLC from MS than previous versions seem to have gotten. And, it doesn’t mean that some companies might actually see Office 2007 as a reason to finally upgrade from Office ’97/2k.
I’m sure people are going to appreciate going through a mountain of licensing and restrictions they probably didn’t know existed.
What “mountain” are you talking about? The Home and Student package may be installed on three computers, and it can be purchased by any home user (not just students). That seems like pretty simple licensing to me with less restrictions than before.
I wouldn’t try to say that anyone should just go out and buy this product because MS invested more into it (I’m very happy using OOo for a lot of my work). This is a big product though. It will have a fairly significant effect on the market partly because MS put more work into it, partly because it is the dominant office suite, and also partly because it will help motivate the competition to continue to improve as much as the competition has motivated MS to improve their products.
Yer. I’m sure people are going to appreciate going through a mountain of licensing and restrictions they probably didn’t know existed.
Ah yes, and when someone purchases software – screw the features they might possible require to improve productivity, lets drag out that dead horse of licence whining and give it a damn good flog.
Give me a break, please, I use my software for work, and quite frankly, having had a look at the competition, there isn’t a damn office suite that holds a candle to what Office can provide one, be it the über office worker or the end user who simply wants to get their work done.
Right now I’m using Office 2003, and quite frankly, when compared to OpenOffice.org – Microsoft have NOTHING to fear; the only milage that OpenOffice.org has made is against the dying office suits – IBM using OpenOffice.org as a component of their collabortion software, and people replacing their Wordperfect installations with something that appears that’ll last longer (in terms of financial viability) than a few years.
Want to know why the alternatives aren’t making head way – contra to the *occasional* hype; the opensource and more correctly, the Microsoft competitors just don’t get it. They spend more time bashing Windows an Office than trying to get their software not only to do what customers want to do but to also work together with other pieces of software out there to provide a complete end to end work flow which can fit into a large organisation.
Look at Microsofts software line up – be it their middleware or operating system, everything is interlinked with each other in someway, each product leans on another product and integrates to leverage the advantage of each product, so that if one were to go for a complete Microsoft, they’ll see a completely integrated workflow.
I’m not a Microsoft ‘fanboy’, but its time to realise as a mature adult when a company has a good product line up and can provide what businesses and individuals want.
Look at Microsofts software line up – be it their middleware or operating system, everything is interlinked with each other in someway, each product leans on another product and integrates to leverage the advantage of each product, so that if one were to go for a complete Microsoft, they’ll see a completely integrated workflow.
This is called “vendor lock-in”. They could be interlinking everything with open standards, instead they choose to chain their customers.
I’m not a Microsoft ‘fanboy’, but its time to realise as a mature adult when a company has a good product line up and can provide what businesses and individuals want.
Sorry, most individuals, including those in companies, use less than 10 percent of the features of MS Office 2000. It’ll be less than 5 percent of MS 2007!
I never used MS Office, yet i survive, yet i can read all documents that i receive. I’m sure most people will find all they need in OpenOffice.org or Gnumeric or AbiWord or whatever other office app.
— This is called “vendor lock-in”. They could be interlinking everything with open standards, instead they choose to chain their customers.
Actually its called gaining efficiency. Besides, if you start to think about it, if a company offers a great way of manipulating a document but the format is open, it opens the door for other companies to take away the use of their software. What microsoft is doing isn’t insane by any stretch of the imagination.
— Sorry, most individuals, including those in companies, use less than 10 percent of the features of MS Office 2000. It’ll be less than 5 percent of MS 2007!
You would benefit from working in IT. I would be very impressed to listen to you tell the CFO that his 5 percent of the features can be easily replaced with another tool. And listen to you apologize when his macros break, when powerpoint equivalent doesn’t work for his presentations to investors..
This isn’t to say that the conversion is impossible. I suspect that over time (which may be many, many years) we will all go over to an open format. But this means you will have to introduce an office alternative and have the users believe it is more capable for their needs. Not your needs, theirs.
And then you might have a chance with the CFO.
Maybe.
This is called “vendor lock-in”. They could be interlinking everything with open standards, instead they choose to chain their customers.
What has ever stopped Oracle, IBM and the likes from creating an end to end solution using their different components – AH! thats right! they would rather prefer bickerig amoungst themselfs, bitching about Microsoft and cooking up grand conspiracy theories on how they’re the under dog and getting done over by Microsoft.
Sorry, Microsoft competitors are in that position because they CHOOSE not to work together, they CHOOSE to act like children, they CHOOSE to ignore their customers requirements, they CHOOSE fight amoungst themselves rather than finding a middle ground.
Sorry, most individuals, including those in companies, use less than 10 percent of the features of MS Office 2000. It’ll be less than 5 percent of MS 2007!
I never used MS Office, yet i survive, yet i can read all documents that i receive. I’m sure most people will find all they need in OpenOffice.org or Gnumeric or AbiWord or whatever other office app.
Its obvious that you don’t work in a large organisation, because I can tell you, in a large organisation, the world doesn’t revolve around the idea of a computer being used a glorified type writer.
Macros, templates, customised setups etc. etc. – that doesn’t then go into the reliance on software that sits on the server.
Again, where is the alternative to Sharepoint? AH! thats right, Microsoft competitors would rather bitch to the DOJ than sitting back and saying, “thats a f*cking good idea, lets work together to not only deliver something of equal feature set, but provide something does it BETTER than what Microsoft can”.
But like I said, that would actually require them to knuckle down, work together and have a little thing called VISION.
“I’m sure companies are going to want to upgrade to this straight away.”
No way.
It doesn’t even support OpenDocument format.
How poor is that?
I most companies, OpenDocument is realy not important. In fact, it’s not a “most wanted” feature.
This thing is not going to stop the deployment of Office 2007. End Of Support of current Office is going to force deployment of Office 2007…
And no, OpenOffice is not a solution for, again, many compagnies.
I most companies, OpenDocument is realy not important. In fact, it’s not a “most wanted” feature.
Actually Massassuchet and companies outside North America especially in Europe continent already started the transition to Open Document Format during 2006. Starting from 2007, ODF will become the standard for several governements, businesses and corporations. Not providing a support for that format will hurt Microsoft in the long term no matter the features Office 2007.
And if you read an article that was posted here I think not too long ago as to why support for ODF then dropped from Massachussetts you wouldnt be saying that. MSO is a very touch product to beat Open Doc Standards or not. People will always buy copies of it. Heck as much as I enjoy using OpenOffice I am gonna grab me a Professional copy though it will prob set me 300 bux.
“not too long ago as to why support for ODF then dropped from Massachussetts”
You are sadly mistaken.
OpenDocument is not dropped at all in Massachussetts. OpenDocument is on track to be implemented in Massachussetts in Jan 07.
OpenDocument is also being adopted as the standard document interchange format in much of Europe.
Oh really hal2k1, is that why Microsoft is losing so much money in Europe? Please, give me a break, Microsoft have their own XML format (which has become the default format for Office 2007), nothing stopping someone from implementing that based on the information provided by Microsoft.
Actually Massassuchet and companies outside North America especially in Europe continent already started the transition to Open Document Format during 2006. Starting from 2007, ODF will become the standard for several governements, businesses and corporations. Not providing a support for that format will hurt Microsoft in the long term no matter the features Office 2007.
Based on what evidence? companies are just going to throw away Microsoft software, along with all the required functionality that their business relies on, simply to get that nice fuzzy feeling knowing that they’re saving their documents in an openformat?
Please, move out of your mum and dad’s basement, and join the real world – businesses RELY on software, and it doesn’t matter WHAT is on offer, if it doesn’t provide the end user with the solutions that they require for their business problems, it doesn’t matter two bits of dog shit as to whether the software is free, uses an open document format, or that the pope blessed it himself.
Based on what evidence? companies are just going to throw away Microsoft software, along with all the required functionality that their business relies on, simply to get that nice fuzzy feeling knowing that they’re saving their documents in an openformat?
What do you think when a particular company request to add a open format to keep their datas and the software provider refuse to support it? Do you think they will wait that software provide when there is alternative? Speaking about evidence,
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1863060,00.asp
When you are in business, do you also think for a long term plan in addition of short term?
Please, move out of your mum and dad’s basement, and join the real world – businesses RELY on software, and it doesn’t matter WHAT is on offer, if it doesn’t provide the end user with the solutions that they require for their business problems, it doesn’t matter two bits of dog shit as to whether the software is free, uses an open document format, or that the pope blessed it himself.
I am in the real world, I saw some goverments, non-profits and some companies moving toward open format. They are planning now so they can be ready for the future. For them, 2006 is the year of transition in case of Massassuchet.
As the leader of Office software, does it make sense for Microsoft to implement requested format (ODF) if their product is superior to the competitions? Think about it.
As the leader of Office software, does it make sense for Microsoft to implement requested format (ODF) if their product is superior to the competitions? Think about it.
Small number of squeaky wheels – Microsoft has already settled on an XML format which will become the default format for saving documents in Office 12/2007; they’ll also make the necessary information available for those wishing to implement that format.
Microsoft is moving forward, but they aren’t going to allow a small rowdy nose makers or a junta of committee members dictate the direction of their product – which the adoption of ODF would entail.
As soon as you start using ODF, you’re expected to change your suite to make the ODF fit in, and I’m sorry, Microsoft isn’t not going to beheld to a small group of people who failed to grab market share with their half baked products, so now demand via PR that Microsoft join their group. Its pathetic, and quite frankly, most customers see the ODF movement for what it really is – Microsoft competitors with sour grapes.
Small number of squeaky wheels – Microsoft has already settled on an XML format which will become the default format for saving documents in Office 12/2007; they’ll also make the necessary information available for those wishing to implement that format.
Non-negligible numbers enough to cause Microsoft to react much like the case of Massassuchet decision to adopt ODF. XML format from Microsoft doesn’t pass one of European consortum such as being non-dependant to a single vendor. It is a public format we are talking about.
Microsoft is moving forward, but they aren’t going to allow a small rowdy nose makers or a junta of committee members dictate the direction of their product – which the adoption of ODF would entail.
So you want a software company to ignore request from a government, companies or non-profit?
As soon as you start using ODF, you’re expected to change your suite to make the ODF fit in, and I’m sorry, Microsoft isn’t not going to beheld to a small group of people who failed to grab market share with their half baked products, so now demand via PR that Microsoft join their group. Its pathetic, and quite frankly, most customers see the ODF movement for what it really is – Microsoft competitors with sour grapes.
Does these customers want be stuck with a closed format they cannot open with previous office like 2000/XP/2003? Is that what you insunuate? How hard is it to add a public format within a year?
You forgot that Microsoft is OASIS member for awhile to make such statement.
“Small number of squeaky wheels – Microsoft has already settled on an XML format which will become the default format for saving documents in Office 12/2007; they’ll also make the necessary information available for those wishing to implement that format. ”
This is not good enough.
I need an Office suite that can read and save in OpenDocument format.
That format is the only international, standard, open format.
MS Office 12 doesn’t support OpenDocument. I can’t use Office 12 therefore.
“Microsoft is moving forward, but they aren’t going to allow a small rowdy nose makers or a junta of committee members dictate the direction of their product – which the adoption of ODF would entail. ”
It wasn’t Office suite makers that started the effort to define OpenDocument – that was asked for by end customers. End customers wanted an open document format that all suppliers of software could write applications for, and which therefore did not depend on a single supplier.
So re-phrased, your comment means Microsoft can’t let customers tell it what customers want.
That is a 100% certain sure-fire way to rid yourself of customers, Microsoft.
Edited 2006-02-18 12:44
“Small number of squeaky wheels – Microsoft has already settled on an XML format which will become the default format for saving documents in Office 12/2007; they’ll also make the necessary information available for those wishing to implement that format.
Microsoft is moving forward, but they aren’t going to allow a small rowdy nose makers or a junta of committee members dictate the direction of their product – which the adoption of ODF would entail.
As soon as you start using ODF, you’re expected to change your suite to make the ODF fit in, and I’m sorry, Microsoft isn’t not going to beheld to a small group of people who failed to grab market share with their half baked products, so now demand via PR that Microsoft join their group. Its pathetic, and quite frankly, most customers see the ODF movement for what it really is – Microsoft competitors with sour grapes.”
Perhaps this might help you to understand:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_10/computing_…
A car is a small competitor compared to a train, but that didn’t stop the car dominating the transport industry.
Wake up and smell the roses.
Oh, and how about reading the thread instead of randomly replying to most posts; such as this post which addressed those issues you talk about:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=13700&comment_id=96415
But hey, you keep living in the land of denial.
OpenDocument is the single most important initiative in IT right now.
It is vitally impotant, an absolute must have.
“And no, OpenOffice is not a solution for, again, many compagnies.”
On the contrary, OO is overkill for what most companies and users need. Most users use only use a tiny subset of all the MSOffice features and could just as well use OO or even Gnumeric or KSpread. What product users think they need to perform a task and what they actually need are not necessarily the same.
“And no, OpenOffice is not a solution for, again, many compagnies.”
What I mean is that OpenSource software is not something that all compagnies want to run on their PC. I know that where I work, they barely accept Linux (only RedHat) for Servers.
No doubt that this is a significant release from a technical point of view. Microsoft has been forced to react to competition from below, which is a new thing, as Microsoft is usually the competitor coming from below.
As for the importance of this release from a customer point of view, things may look at little different. Microsoft has added a lot of new functionality to a program suite, which already has much more functionality than the average users could ever dream about using. Sure, sometimes the special function really makes it worth it, but I would estimate that around 90% only uses a very limited subset of the functionality. And the changed GUI means training, which again equals extra costs.
Right now they are at the same time trying to keep the low-end competitors at bay, while climbing into the enterprise space, with high-end components.
I see two major risks to their cashcow:
1.
In the low end of the market, their worst enemies will be “good enough” mentality among their customers, which would allow the customers to use older office versions or competitors software, instead of performing a costly upgrade.
2.
In the higher end of the market, I have some doubts how the customers will view their server-components. In a world that moves towards open standards (especially in the public sector), and less reliance on a single vendor, MS office servers does probably not seem like a sound strategy. Sounds like another lock-in. What is the long term value proposition here?
I certainly don´t see any rush towards Office 2007 on the horizon.
No doubt that this is a significant release from a technical point of view. Microsoft has been forced to react to competition from below, which is a new thing, as Microsoft is usually the competitor coming from below.
Not necessarily, they’re facing competition from MySQL and numerous other vendors in regards to MS SQL and the likes – so competition isn’t a new thing for Microsoft; they have, however, in the past been caught with their pants down in regards to offering flat selection where as consumers wanted more of a multi-tired approach to their development tools, for example – hence the launch of their express versions, allowing one to put their toe into the development environment without the need to fork out cash – same thing going for their SQL tools too.
As for the importance of this release from a customer point of view, things may look at little different. Microsoft has added a lot of new functionality to a program suite, which already has much more functionality than the average users could ever dream about using. Sure, sometimes the special function really makes it worth it, but I would estimate that around 90% only uses a very limited subset of the functionality. And the changed GUI means training, which again equals extra costs.
Right now they are at the same time trying to keep the low-end competitors at bay, while climbing into the enterprise space, with high-end components.
Its pretty difficult to ‘climb into the enterprise space’ considering that they always have existed in that – the issue isn’t getting into the enterprise space but making a argument as to why companies should adopt Microsofts Office server software rather than continuing on with the status quo – that is, using no software on the server that makes the link between server and client in the office environment.
As for re-training, like above, the issue isn’t necessarily about retraining per-say, but whether Microsoft can make a case as to whether the possibly training required will yeild sufficient productivity gains as to warrent the added costs associated with the transition – that is what will be argued over, not just the retraining.
I see two major risks to their cashcow:
1.In the low end of the market, their worst enemies will be “good enough” mentality among their customers, which would allow the customers to use older office versions or competitors software, instead of performing a costly upgrade.
How is it costly? for the end user, if they’re not employed by a company which has a select licencing agreement, which allows employees to run the same software at home as they have at work – they can always pick up a copy of Office for $150 which allows them to install it onto 3 computers, I don’t know about you, but thats bloody good value.
As for small business – they’ll upgrade; almost a certaintity like Windows XP, office supply companies will offer bundles, discounts and the like; so don’t be surprised to see that when hardware upgrading comes along, they’ll throw software ontop of the upgrade cycle.
2.In the higher end of the market, I have some doubts how the customers will view their server-components. In a world that moves towards open standards (especially in the public sector), and less reliance on a single vendor, MS office servers does probably not seem like a sound strategy. Sounds like another lock-in. What is the long term value proposition here?
I certainly don´t see any rush towards Office 2007 on the horizon.
‘A world moving towards open standards’ – excuse me, but all evidence shows that the world is still at status quo time right now; people don’t go for open or closed standards, they go for technology that works for them, and if it means a fully Microsoft shop, then so be it, just as another company might standardise on Solaris/SPARC and Sybase.
If people were going for openstandards in droves, firstly, you would see a mass adoption of OpenOffice.org – no one would be using .NET, everyone would be adopting OGG, and no one would be adopting DirectX for their graphics and games.
The reality is, however, the only difference now, Microsoft has some small amount of competition, but its minor to say the least, there has been no dent to the profit growth, customers are upgrading per-usual, and world continues spinning around.
Like I keep saying, the cold hard reality is that businesses and people don’t make their software purchases based on political persuasions, they view their computer as a tool, they choose software that allows them to use that tool in the most efficient manner possible, and so far no competitior has come up with a viable stack that can hold a candle to what Microsoft is providing – and if businesses *SEE* value in the new server/client combination, the gap between Microsoft and competition will widen even further.
Edited 2006-02-16 22:23
“How is it costly? for the end user, if they’re not employed by a company which has a select licencing agreement, which allows employees to run the same software at home as they have at work – they can always pick up a copy of Office for $150 which allows them to install it onto 3 computers, I don’t know about you, but thats bloody good value. ”
Yes, it is very good value (depending on how much you are actually using Office). Most larger companies will have much greater costs associated with an upgrade, such as pilot testing, compatibility testing, roll-out and training. It all sums up to way more than $149.
And I am probably not the only one saying this – but most people don´t use much of the functioality in Office. What is good enough for them?
”
‘A world moving towards open standards’ – excuse me, but all evidence shows that the world is still at status quo time right now; ”
In the greater scheme of things, I really do think that we are moving towards open standards. The most interesting things that has happened through the last 10-15 years have been the breakthrough of Http, Html, Xml etc. Office suites will be next.
“people were going for openstandards in droves, firstly, you would see a mass adoption of OpenOffice.org – no one would be using .NET, everyone would be adopting OGG, and no one would be adopting DirectX for their graphics and games. ”
.Net for OO? I think really that you you are mixing up data and code.
“The reality is, however, the only difference now, Microsoft has some small amount of competition, but its minor to say the least, there has been no dent to the profit growth, customers are upgrading per-usual, and world continues spinning around. ”
But enough competition to make Steve B. flying around and throwing discounts around for potential defectors. So far anyone with a semi-decent OO/Linux migration plan, will be able to get huge discounts from Microsoft. I wonder why…..
Peronally, I don´t care if Microsoft office becomes the default office suite. As long as it is based on open standards and a battle for implementation I couldn´t care less.
But it may take a while…..
s/stagnant/feature complete/
What about companies that decide to use open document format? Will Office 2007 support it?
Last I heard, ODF was not in the supported list.
While the pricing is “ok” I’m going to stick with OpenOffice, it suits my needs, and since I’m running cross platform (Win/Mac/Lin) it lets me move data from one machine to another.
I seriously doubt MS will be doing this anytime soon, or at all for that matter. If I were calling the shots at Microsoft, I wouldn’t even consider it.
Far too much to lose, and far too little to gain.
If there’s one thing that makes a product line suck, it’s saturation of tiered versions. Windows Vista has (I think) 7 versions, and now Office 2007 will also have 7 versions. What the hell? You don’t need more than four versions, and even that is pushing it. This will only serve to confuse the hell out of users.
That said, Office is still great. It’s consistently fast, stable, and pretty (in my opinion, some people think it’s butt-ugly).
The thing about Office is that it’s a staple of business environments. It will always be around, and it will never be replaced noticeably by any other alternatives. That would lead one to think that Microsoft lets it stagnate simply because they don’t need to put an effort into it, but that’s not the case.
I was doing some thinking today about Office, and I came to the conclusion that Microsoft has one very tough competitor — themselves. Both Office 2000 and 2003 were “good enough” products, in the sense that there was no immediate need felt to upgrade to something better or find an alternative. With every release of Windows and Office, they have to find better ways to convince the consumer that this new version offers them something worthy, and at a price that is affordable.
They’re their own competitor, really. It’s got to be tough, and it’s a catch-22 — the next version of Office and Windows will have to compete against Office 2007 and Windows Vista, which will be even tougher to do.
If there’s one thing that makes a product line suck, it’s saturation of tiered versions. Windows Vista has (I think) 7 versions, and now Office 2007 will also have 7 versions. What the hell? You don’t need more than four versions, and even that is pushing it. This will only serve to confuse the hell out of users.
How so? Windows Vista will be supplied on one CD, and which version gets installed depends on which key that you put it, and if you wish to upgrade from the low-low end to the all the bells and whistles version, you simply buy a new key.
In the case of confusion, I doubt, they would offer all 7, most likely scenario, the really cheap versions will be only on offer in third world countries as to lower the price to entry, and as for us ‘rich fellas in the west’ we’ll probably get offered, possibly three versions with the middle version the default one, and for something like an extra $50, you can upgrade to the high end version.
Ultimately, however, if people end up choosing to mainly go for the high end version of it, you’ll simply see OEM’s cater for that, which is a good thing IMHO.
So before starting Microsoft bash-a-thon 2006, lets stand back and wait to see what eventuates and see what Microsoft has to offer.
I think that somewhere someone will make a filter to allow OpenDoc to work on MSO2k7, who knows, maybe by that time my coding would have improved enough to make one myself…
Joelito:Goes and grabs his c++ books and the Opendoc specs.
Edited 2006-02-16 20:32
I can’t see Office 12 Beta 1 on MSDN Universal… They are talking about pre-Beta 2 status…
I’m not so sure about the new Office GUI…
One thing that concerns me about Office 12 and Windows Vista is the amount of additional information and options that have been added to the user interface. Have a look at Windows explorer in Vista compared to, say, Windows 2000. Office 12 is changing the buttons and menus paradigm in a very marked way.
It’s fine for experienced computer users and enthusiasts – they’ll find it interesting and will want to explore.
I work as an IT trainer and I find that that computer skills of a lot of average, non-enthusiasts are very poor. Many use the computer by rote without any intuitive understanding of how it functions. These people will find the adjustment to Vista and Office 12 very stressful. The situation is not helped by companies and government agencies who do not see a value in computer training.
It seems that Microsoft has assumed a certain level of sophistication in the users of their products. The reality is that many users still don’t understand the basic principles properly.
I know couple of people who are still very happy with their MS Works 4,5 running on Windows95 Pentium I machines.
Just couple weeks ago I met the lady (she is a professor at Ohio State University) who is still using her Worperfect 5,0 daily. She can’t live without WP 5.0 macros.And she can’t care less whether that’s Win95 or XP running in MS-DOS compatibility mode.
Do you ( or Micros-off-T people) really think she has to switch to more sophisticated “typewriter” ?
And I agree with A30Guy .
Average computer user is still living in paleolythic era of computing.